DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 04/28/2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, rejection of the new claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanasundara (US 2010/0249378) in view of Wnukowski (US 2021/0137134 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Wanasundara teaches a process for processing seed meal (Abstract)
a) providing a seed meal (oilseed meal Par. 0012)
said seed being at least partially dehulled before being pressed (dehulling Par. 0026)
b) washing the meal by mixing it with a first acidic aqueous solution to obtain an aqueous-washed seed meal (aqueous extraction at a pH of from about 2.5 to about 5.0 to obtain a cruciferin rich residue Par. 0066, Fig. 10)
wherein said first acidic solution comprises more than 90% w/w of water (aqueous solution may be water with salt, salt in concentration of about 0.25 to about 2.0 w/v Par. 0076; citric salt Par. 0035). As it is an aqueous solution, the density can be assumed to be roughly 1g/mL and therefore the concentration of salt is 0.25 to about 2.0 % w/w and the balance is water, so more than 90% w/w water.
c) washing said aqueous-washed seed meal by mixing with a first alcohol solvent to obtain a first alcohol-washed seed meal (performing aqueous extraction of cruciferin-rich residue, solvent may be alcohol such as ethanol Par. 0024)
and separating said alcohol-washed soybean seed meal from said solvent to obtain said protein concentrate (aqueous extraction followed by filtration resulting in low protein and fiber rich residue Par. 0014 Fig. 10).
Wanasundara does not teach producing a protein concentrate, the seed is soybean, a press cake of soybean seed, or the first alcohol solvent is a hydrous or a non-hydrous alcohol having an alcohol concentration which is above 75 % w/w.
Wnukowski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a process for processing soybean seeds (process for preparation of isolate from plant material Par. 0038; soybeans Par. 0049)
a press cake from soybean seed (pressed to produce oilseed cakes Par. 0055)
an alcohol solvent which is a hydrous or a non-hydrous alcohol and has an alcohol concentration which is above 75 % w/w (second solvent comprises at least 90 wt % of an alcohol being miscible with water at room temperature Par. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wanasundara with the invention of Wnukowski. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce food in a way that is not harmful to the environment in a way that is economically feasible (Wnukowski Par. 0002).
Wanasundara does not teach producing a protein concentrate
Regarding producing a protein concentrate, as the combination of Wasasundara and Wnukowski teach the same ingredients and process as the claimed invention, one would expect the products to have similar protein contents.
Regarding claim 2, Wanasundara further teaches said seeds are kernels (dehulling of oilseeds Par. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 3, Wanasundara does not teach said press cake is obtained by cold pressing said soybean seed.
Wnukowski further teaches said press cake is obtained by cold pressing said soybean seed (cold pressing Par. 0055-0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wanasundara with the invention of Wnukowski. One would have been motivated to make this modification to use mechanical means for removing fat to avoid protein degradation from solvents (Wnukowski Par. 0055)
Regarding claim 4, Wanasundara further teaches the pH of acidic wash of step b) is adjusted to range from 3.5 to 5.2 (aqueous extraction at a pH of 3.5 Par. 0075).
Regarding claim 5, Wanasundara further teaches said process comprises only one acid washing step (First aqueous extraction acidic and second aqueous extraction alkaline or neutral Par. 0013, Par. 0018 Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Wanasundara does not teach said first alcohol solvent is a hydrous, a non-hydrous or an azeotrope mixture of alcohol.
Wnukowski further teaches said first alcohol solvent is a hydrous, a non-hydrous or an azeotrope mixture of alcohol (96% ethanol Par. 108 step 8; aqueous solutions Par. 0014). As seen in Pg. 10 lines 12-18 of applicant’s specification filed 12/01/2023, an aqueous mixture of 96% ethanol is an azeotrope. Wnukowski teaches a second aqueous solvent with 96% ethanol, therefore it teaches an alcohol solvent which is an azeotrope.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wanasundara with the invention of Wnukowski. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce food in a way that is not harmful to the environment in a way that is economically feasible (Wnukowski Par. 0002).
Regarding claim 7, Wanasundara further teaches said first alcohol solvent is ethanol (alcohol such as ethanol Par. 0022).
Regarding claim 8, Wanasundara further teaches step c) of said process is repeated no more than once (Fig. 10, aqueous extraction of residue only performed once).
Regarding claim 9, as the process of modified Wanasundara discloses the same process with the same ingredients and solvents as claimed, one would assume the solubility of the proteins would act similarly between the invention of the prior art and that of the present invention.
Regarding claim 10, Wanasundara further teaches a drying step (drying the residue Par. 0020).
Regarding claim 17, Wanasundara does not teach the temperature of the soybean seed during the cold pressing shall be maintained as of 80°C or less.
Wnukowski further teaches the temperature of the soybean seed during the cold pressing shall be maintained as of 80°C or less (cold pressed at <70°C Par. 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wanasundara with the invention of Wnukowski. One would have been motivated to make this modification to use mechanical means for removing fat to avoid protein degradation from solvents (Wnukowski Par. 0055).
Regarding claim 18, Wanasundara does not teach said first alcohol solvent is an azeotrope.
Wnukowski further teaches said first alcohol solvent is an azeotrope (96% ethanol Par. 108 step 8; aqueous solutions Par. 0014). As seen in Pg. 10 lines 12-18 of applicant’s specification filed 12/01/2023, an aqueous mixture of 96% ethanol is an azeotrope. Wnukowski teaches a second aqueous solvent with 96% ethanol, therefore it teaches an alcohol solvent which is an azeotrope.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wanasundara with the invention of Wnukowski. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce food in a way that is not harmful to the environment in a way that is economically feasible (Wnukowski Par. 0002).
Regarding claim 19, Wanasundara does not teach said ethanol is at a concentration of 96%.
Wnukowski further teaches said ethanol is at a concentration of 96% w/w (second solvent with 96% ethanol Par. 108 step 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the timing of filing, to modify the invention of Wanasundara with the invention of Wnukowski. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce food in a way that is not harmful to the environment in a way that is economically feasible (Wnukowski Par. 0002).
Regarding claim 20, Wanasundara further teaches further hexane is not used (defatting of cotyledons with hexane Par. 0114; the cotyledons may be defatted Par. 0097). Hexane is not required for the process of Wanasundara.
Regarding claim 21, Wanasundara further teaches hexane and/or a non-polar solvent is not used (defatting of cotyledons with hexane Par. 0114; the cotyledons may be defatted Par. 0097). Hexane is not required for the process of Wanasundara.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanasundara in view of Wnukowski, further in view of Hildebrand (“11.1 Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wanasundara teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wanasundara does not teach soybeans from Glycine max L.
Wnukowski teaches soybeans (Par. 0049), but does not teach the soybeans are from Glycine max L.
Hildebrand, in the same field of endeavor, teaches soybeans with the species Glycine max L (Pg. 1 Section 1.1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to choose the species of soybeans of Hildebrand in the invention of modified Wanasundara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to select a vegetable protein with protein efficiency ratios approaching that of skim milk (Hildebrand Pg. 1 Section 1.1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-6, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wanasundara (2010/0249378 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rozenszain (US 2012/0252065 A1) discloses a process of preparing a protein isolate from soybean meal (Abstract, Par. 0029)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights